1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to the components of a furniture system which specifically improve the flexibility, mobility, and adaptability of the furniture system for its users. The furniture components are interchangeable and adaptable to numerous layouts and configurations. The unique feature of these components is the ability to change an office layout without disassembling the units.
2. The Prior Art
Today's office furniture systems claim to be versatile and flexible, but they are not. All prior concepts in office furniture systems were appropriate for the past when offices and businesses had a steady slow growth rate and were able to expand within the confines of an existing building. Today, however, businesses expand at a much faster pace and to a further extent. Existing office systems cannot accommodate the changing psychology of today's workplace. Today's businesses require quicker on-site solutions for changes that may be necessary on a weekly basis. These changes may require a business to expand within the same floor. Some changes may require an existing space to be reshaped, reconfigured and rearranged using existing furniture components.
Originally furniture systems were inflexible and ill adapted for changing office spaces. Later, furniture companies such as Haworth and SteelCase created a modular office system by creating a partition panel system in which all the components such as the file cabinets, desks, etc., would be attached and dependent upon the layout of the panels. Examples of this are reflected in U.S. Pat. No. 5,038,539 to Herman Miller, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,593 to Rosemount Office Systems, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,594 to Edward C. Schairbaum; U.S. Pat. No. 5,428,928 to John Hellwig; U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,492 to Dunning, Ltd.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,400,560 to Teknion Furniture Systems; U.S. Design Pat. 334,483 to Margaret A. Johnson; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,086,597 to Herman Miller, Inc. These office systems rely heavily on their modular panels to organize floor planning, the wiring of an office space, and a user's workspace. Any configurations would then be limited by the panel systems. The modular panels of those systems increased office layout flexibility during the initial layout. But they became increasingly expensive, limited in scope, and very difficult to rearrange.
Today's open office systems still rely heavily on such panels in an ever-changing office environment. The use of modular panels naturally suffers from a lack of flexibility. After the initial design layout is created, one cannot easily reconfigure component parts or rearrange spaces if a certain area needs to be expanded or adjusted. The ability to change furniture components is predetermined by the use of partition panels. It is difficult to create different size spaces using partition panels. In addition, it is most likely that office spaces are laid out back to back. Since the furniture components are attached and dependent upon the panels, a change of one office area affects another. If the proper panel sizes or components to perform needed changes are not available, new component(s) (panels etc.) would need to be re-ordered making the project more costly. Reorganizing would then produce leftover or unusable parts, which cannot be returned.
The user's area also suffers from the lack of flexibility provided by today's office systems. For example, the office layout may be set up perfectly for the current user, but the next user may find it difficult to adapt to the current setup. This pertains to the so-called one way design, as mentioned before where the initial layout of components is flexible, however, the adaptability to future office environments may be difficult.
Mobility of prior systems is difficult, cumbersome, and not easily adaptable to changes occurring in modern office environments, even if only a move across the floor is required. Mobility on a grander scale is also cumbersome because prior art systems tended to be unmanageable and complex in design. Unmanageable systems are systems that need expert people to disassemble and move the components of large heavy pieces such as panels. Complex systems are systems that have unique detailing and connections not obvious to the user. As doubly noted in U.S. Pat. No. 4,325,597 to Knoll International, Inc., most furniture systems must be taken apart and transported as smaller parts in a flat manner. Even these smaller panels of most systems were 5' (feet) or longer. It is an absolute requirement for these furniture systems to be ultimately emptied of their contents so that parts can be moved to another location.
Finally, since these systems were primarily designed to fit in right angled spaces, these systems fail to adapt to fluid curved wall spaces (which is evident in today's new building and interior design layouts). All so-called flexible furniture systems of today deal with 90 and 180 degree angles. Anything in between would not work and would look awkward. It is evident that the prior art does not solve all of the mentioned problems. Our invention provides solutions to each of these problems. In conclusion, office furniture systems of today tend to be similar to those first introduced many years ago. The prior art of office furniture systems is not flexible enough for today's office environment needs.
In summary, all heretofore known flexible furniture systems suffer from a number of disadvantages:
(a) The prior art of office furniture systems rely heavily on a panel system to organize office areas. This is turn, limits the system from any future changes from its initial configuration.
(b) The prior art does not have the ability to remain flexible for future changes. In addition new layouts are not easily obtained without disturbing more than one office area.
(c) Numerous parts are required to maintain the flexibility of prior art office furniture systems during initial installation. However, due to the increased number of parts (panels, furniture, cabinets, etc.) installation becomes increasingly expensive, and difficult to rearrange the components.
(d) Prior art does not lend itself to adjusting the user's space quickly. Components are dependent upon panels, so wherever the panels fall, components such as desks and cabinets will follow.
(e) The office systems of today and of the past lend themselves to permanence instead of mobility. The office furniture system must be completely disassembled if the office areas were to be moved. It may be concluded that prior art office systems are just another alternative to full height wall partitions of the past.
(f) Prior art deals mostly with 90 and 180 degree angles. Any other angles are not possible using 100% percent of all the components.